And, according to the mediacampaign.org site, all* the money isn’t coming from tax dollars.
Other Organizations are assisting the campaign.**
*I didn’t see, upon skimming the page linked, any mention of governmental assistance. But, I don’t doubt some does come from taxes.
**Who knows if the “partnerships” have a monetary value or if they are simply for moral support.
The commercial is crap because you could replace “getting stoned” with anything.
“Just tell her parents you were too busy watching her because you were getting drunk. They’ll understand.”
“Just tell her parents you were too busy watching her because you were in the bathroom. They’ll understand.”
“Just tell her parents you were too busy watching her because you were watching TV. They’ll understand.”
It’s not a commercial about pot, it’s a commercial about priorities. I suppose the implication is that pot users are more likely to ignore important things in favor of getting high… but without any evidence, it’s just pandering bullshit. Marijuana isn’t physically addictive, and millions of people use pot responsibly - if someone would rather get high than keep a kid from drowning, the problem is with him, not the drug.
Nicotine is very toxic, especially in young children. Eating as few as four cigarettes can kill a baby. Adults have committed suicide by intentionally overdosing themselves with nicotine.
And, out of curiousity, Miller, why a “yes” on coke and a “probably no” on heroin? And a solid “no” on PCP? I haven’t had personal experience with any of the three, but everything I’ve heard and read concludes that PCP is less addictive than the other two.
I think a good dividing line between hard and soft drugs is whether or not a significant percentage of addicts would do something they really didn’t want to do to get the drug. Or, as Bob Saget’s character in Half Baked said “I used to suck dick for coke. You ever sucked some dick for marijuana?”
And I like your style of tossing up pointless non-information when the actual facts are readily accessible only a couple of mouseclicks away.
Neutron star, I used the site you linked to to back up what I said originally. I am not debating that the gov. started the program. But if taxes are being used to pay for any of this anti-drug campaign, it isn’t the only source of support.
You said taxes were paying for the campaign, I showed that matched funds from paid advertisements were paying for at least part of the commercials.
You called BS, so I elaborated. I was under the impression that this was the normal way of doing things on these boards.
Moving on.
Lucki Chaarms has suddenly made me want to watch Dragnet. The movie, not the tv show.
I figured as much, but wasn’t certain.
While I’d never try coke, because I’m pretty sure I’d get addicted in a heartbeat, I know a lot of people who use it casually without fucking up their lives. I don’t know any heroin users, but its my impression that casual heroin use is much, much rarer. Then again, it’s hard to get unbiased information on drugs, so I could be wrong about that. Addictiveness aside, PCP makes the user too much of a danger to others.
These are kinda like the DARE* program. The cops, politicians, teachers and parents all love it, money is always spent for it, and there’s not a shred of evidence that shows it works a lick.
You were the one who blasted the OP in the first place without bothering to check out any of the facts.
Also, matching funds or not, the fact that even a penny of my taxes is going to spread manipulative, misinformative, propaganda is abhorrent to me.
And, FWIW, this lazy pothead has been working and paying Uncle Sam his fair share since he was 15.
I don’t know about humans but it is possible for a dog to eat enough pot to be fatal. Their hearts slow down and their blood pressure drops until they just…die. It takes an awful lot of the stuff, even for a smallish dog. You’d be surprised how much even a small dog can eat, though; sometimes the only thing that saves them is the fact that it was a pretty small stash.
If dogs can eat enough to kill themselves, it stands to reason that we could, too.
Not necessarily. How much chocolate would a person have to eat to be fatal, compared to a dog?
That’s a good question. I’ve heard anecdotal evidence of casual heroin use. I know plenty of people who casually use less-poweful opiate-based pills without getting addicted. I doubt that there are many people who casually inject heroin, but I wouldn’t be surprised to find that there are some who snort it or lace a bowl of weed with it occasionally.
Does that mean you think alcohol should be illegal? Violent drunks are pretty common. And cocaine has certainly been known to give people itchy trigger fingers.
I knew one guy who tried PCP a couple of times. He said it was pretty bizarre, but didn’t make him feel violent. So, like alcohol and cocaine, it apparently doesn’t have that effect on everyone.
Neutron star, I’ll admit that at first I didn’t check the facts. I used my brain to form an assumption that turned out to be (at least so far) true.
If you want to keep every penny you earn, that’s fine. A true libertarian view point. I respect it. But I also think that this is a worthy cause. It could be more valuable if it actually worked well. But, it doesn’t hurt anything (besides annoying you, obviously). It might not even be costing you money. This seems like one of those no swear words on t.v. arguments to me: if you don’t like it, change the channel. I hate those political posters that go in people’s yards; I’m not going to try to get rid of them (even though they are paid for by your tax dollars).
Pot, as far as I know (no, I’m not checking the facts) isn’t, in itself, harmful. I am, for one, in favor of “decriminalizing” pot. Not because it isn’t a dumb thing to do (which I think it is), but because it a)isn’t harmful and b)should be the user’s choice.
I don’t know how you feel about it, but if it were up to me, I wouldn’t have the next person in line try a drug (not marijuana, but more potent stuff) if I knew it could hurt them. The idea of ecstasy, cocaine, and heroin not being harmful appalls me.
The drugs (other than mj) are harmful to the body. That body then becomes a drain on society. Those drugs (along with some others) are banned. This is my understanding of the justification of the drug laws in the United States. This makes sense to me, mostly.
At the present moment in time, with the current laws in place, it is illegal to use drugs recreationally. These commercials, the ad campaign, discourage what is already illegal. So far, no one has shown that it is costing tax dollars. It is an eyesore at worst. But potentially it is providing assistance (though through exaggeration, misinformation, etc.) to individuals to make the prudent choice (if only from a legal standpoint). There is no reason to oppose it.
<off topic>
On a slight hijack (sorry) when you meet people on ecstasy, does it just seem like they aren’t ever happy? No laughing, not smiling? Like their endorphins are just gone. If I understand how ecstasy works, their endorphins are really diluted.
</off topic>
I really don’t know if this post had a point at all, it’s getting pretty early here.
Here is an interesting link that may explain why dogs can die but humans don’t:
So you would have to inject over 18 pounds of pure THC for a toxic dose.
But that’s intravenous. Nobody shoots THC. And marijuana is only ~%3-%25 THC.
That study didn’t mention an oral LD50, but this one does. At least in rats:
So I guess it could technically be possible to kill someone with pure THC in a lab setting. But you’d have to try pretty damn hard. And pure THC is unheard of on the street. In a real world setting, it just wouldn’t be physically possible to eat or smoke enough pot for its effects to become toxic.
Seems this site says a lot of money for these anti-drug ads come from some odd resources.
http://www.fair.org/extra/9707/marijuana.html
<For a group fighting drug abuse, the Partnership has taken cash from some odd parties—including American Brands (Jim Beam whisky), Philip Morris (Marlboro and Virginia Slims cigarettes, Miller beer), Anheuser Busch (Budweiser, Michelob, Busch beer), R.J. Reynolds (Camel, Salem, Winston cigarettes), as well as pharmaceutical firms Bristol Meyers-Squibb, Merck & Company and Proctor & Gamble (Marin Institute Backgrounder, 2/97).>
“Partnership for a Drug Free America”, who make most of these ads, have different drugs they would rather have us choose.
I call bullshit, too.
No, I don’t mind paying taxes. I just don’t want my tax money spreading propaganda.
Lies and scare tactics are a worthy cause? I know another program that use that technique. It’s called D.A.R.E. Seven different studies proved that it was totally ineffective at preventing drug use in the slightest.
Spreading bullshit lies, distortions, and half-truths about drug use doesn’t hurt anything?
I don’t care what the hell the next person is doing as long as it’s not hurting me. If drugs were legal and cheap, junkies could get their fixes without having to hold up liquor stores and steal purses.
Nobody said those drugs weren’t harmful (though ecstasy is debatable), but people are going to use them no matter what. They’ve been doing it since the beginning of time.
Do you:
A. Spend a fortune hunting down users and dealers and locking them up, while all the proceeds from the drugs go to violent cartels.
or
B. Tax recreational drugs like marijuana and use the money to give hardcore addicts treatment, or even free hard drugs. When the hard stuff is free, the black market and the violence that comes with it dries up.
Why shouldn’t people be able to choose what they want to put into their own bodies? With accurate information, people can make informed decisions. When someone has that information and knows the damage that hard drugs can cause, yet still chooses to use them, do you really think he’ll be concerned by a piddly little thing like the law?
If all drugs were legalized tomorrow, I wouldn’t grab for the nearest crack pipe. Neither would you. What makes you think everyone else would?
Providing assistance through misinformation, eh? That would be amusing if it wasn’t so sad.
On Preview: yola, while you are indeed correct about the PDFA’s funding, that’s not the organization we are discussing. This is a media campaign created by the Office of National Drug Control Policy. Earlier in the thread, neuroman posted a link to videos of the ONDCP commercials we’re talking about.
Of course, that’s not to say that the PDFA hasn’t run similar bullshit commercials, and that I don’t hate them a passion, but at least they aren’t using my tax dollars to do it.
She said recovered addicts. Not active users.
Gah. I didn’t read the entirety of the article I linked to. The evil Partnership is mixed up in this mess too:
Yes, a person should be allowed to regulate what goes into his/her own body. However, this shouldn’t come at the expense of the wellbeing of other members of society.
Every person is, in a way, responsible for every life he/she encounters. When driving on the highway, we are all responsible for not only our own lives, but for the life of the daughter mentioned in the OP.
Someone who is considering taking drugs, drinking alcohol, having too much coffee, or eating a few too many pixie sticks, etc. should be very aware that their action could affect the life of another.
The current opinion within the United States government is that the risk to society [posed by the illegal drugs] is too great to be outweighed by the loss of freedom by those who wish to indulge themselves in those drugs. If you think this is wrong, vote accordingly. (Though, I doubt anyone that reads these boards will be alive when/if most drugs are legalized. We’ll all be pretty old/newly dead when marijuana is legalized.) If you don’t want your taxes spent on these travesties, don’t vote for Orrin Hatch (he’ll blow up our computers anyway).
If a person wants to do drugs safely at home, with no chance of harming me, more power to them. But, this isn’t how it always happens. Hence the current laws.
The commercial, no matter who paid for it, was making the point that one is subject to the consequences for one’s own actions. One would think that this isn’t necessary. But, from going through high school, I am of the opinion that it, sadly, is necessary. It insults your intelligence, sorry. It is right on level with some people in the world: some need others to tell them to act responsibly. These boards house an array of minds uncommon to the real world. People are not always conscious of the consequences of their actions.
Serotonin is what I was going for, not endorphins.
Hmm, also, if Americans wouldn’t spend all the money they do on ilicit products (drugs) but instead funneled that money into the legitimate economy, think how much larger the profits would be for McDonalds, Wal-Mart, Subway, etc. If I was a CEO, this idea would at least pass through my mind.
